CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When shooting with a digital camera, most types allow for creating monochrome images. The camera sensor still captures the image in full-color. The only difference is the processing performed in the camera where a monochrome JPEG is created. If you capture in RAW, you'll note the RAW file is still in color when opened in your editor on your computer.

You can also use your image editor to convert the RAW to a black and white image, using one of several different filters, maybe even mimicking the use of colored filters. Below are two examples of using color filters, the first captured using film and a red 'high contrast' filter and the second is a digital conversion of a RAW capture of the same abandoned vehicle.

Old Car City
White, GA
October 2018

Version 1

Body - EOS 1v
Lens - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Film - Kodak Tri-X 400 with B+W 091 8x MRC Dark Red filter
Exposure - 8 seconds at f/5.6, ISO 400

Old Car City on film


Version 2

Body - EOS 5DIII
Lens - EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Exposure - 1/8 sec at f/5.6, ISO 100

Old Car City


This model of B+W Dark Red filter gives a surrealistic effect in landscape and architectural photography by producing a "storm-like" cloud effect or "moonlight" effect to landscapes. The filter has a factor of 8, requiring exposures to be increased by 3 stops.

The film image was processed and scanned by North Coast Photography Services of Carlsbad, California. Their high-resolution scan created a JPEG of 5035x3339-pixels, the same resolution as a 16MP digital camera. The digital image was captured as a RAW image at 5760x3840-pixels (22MP) and processed in Lightroom using LR's Red filter B&W preset. Both images have additional processing steps in LR to achieve the final results as presented.

The two images are remarkably similar with only subtle differences, where (to my eyes) the primary differences are still a bit more contrast in the film version, the film grain, and the lower resolution / details of the scanned film image. Note the comment of needing a 3-stop adjustment to the exposure when using the 8x factor B+W Dark Red filter. This makes the filter essentially a still-photography with tripod tool, see the 8-second film exposure. The digital conversion method can be applied to any image file with no special consideration to the exposure when capturing the image.

Shown below are the EXIF data from the two Flickr pages of the images above. Note the EXIF details displayed for each image, even the film version.



As discussed in prior posts in this series, I've tried multiple camera bodies for film photography. The camera I've landed on is the EOS 1v where I can seamlessly share EF lenses between a digital EOS 5DIII and the film EOS 1v. I've also tried the EOS Rebel G, a basic model from 1996 that also can use all my EF lenses from 1987 to releases of today. But, the Rebel has only 3 focus points where the EOS 1v has a 45-point AF system almost as sophisticated as the EOS 5DIII model. Around $35 from online sources, the Rebel G is a very economical way to put your L-Series lenses on a film body (any EF lens), with full autofocus functionality and IS, when provided by the lens.

An additional benefit unique to the EOS 1v is the data capture feature. Beyond the rugged build and technical sophistication of the Canon's final 1-series film camera, the 1v also captures 17 attributes of the image, such as the shooting mode, exposure mode, focal length, EC amount, shutter speed and so forth. I use a third-party tool (Meta35 from Promote Systems) to extract the data from the camera to my computer. Meta35 is a custom-tool that fits into the remote control connection on the camera with a USB connection on the other end to the target computer. Meta35 is also the software that extracts the camera data into a database where that data can then be written as EXIF data into the scanned JPEG files. Similar data-capture film bodies are supported by Meta35, such as the Nikon bodies N90 / N90 / F100, and Minolta bodies Maxxum 9 / Dynax 9 / Alpha 9.

Merging the camera data to the scanned JPEGs is a multi-step and multi-tool process. Shoot me a reply or PM is you're interested in more details.

To complete the comparison, below is the completed digital version, prior to the B&W conversion.

Old Car City


Final Thoughts

Although I mentioned slowing down in shooting and the variety and technical differences of the available film types, film isn't some sort of religion for me. Now that digital cameras commonly have a 24MP resolution or higher, even entry-level DSLRs exceed the resolution of most types of 35mm film. For the 35mm format vs digital full-frame, there's no objective measure where "film is better". Rather, film is just something different.

Film can be expensive, time consuming and most typically disappointing, rather than the process and results being something "magical" like you can find glowingly referenced across the Internet. I don't develop my own film nor scan it. Most of my low light or fast action work is simply a non starter for using film. To my eyes, underexposed or color shift (poor white balance) are even uglier in film than digital. Getting acceptable results from the challenge of film has a level of satisfaction, but still not "magically" better than digital. It's just something slightly different by way of a process to create interesting images.

Of the three images above, each is pleasing in it's own way. I find the digital b&w version to be the least attractive of the three. The final example below shows how Kodak Ektar responds to the reds and greens of the north Georgia forest in late October; not by underexposing, but rather, by adding 1-stop of exposure compensation for the lower light of the situation. It's not a one to one comparison to the truck above; but hopefully, this example does help to show that film does have a 'look' that is different from digital.

Body - EOS 1v
Lens - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Film - Kodak Ektar
Exposure - 1/15 at f/5.6, ISO 100

Old Car City on film


Earlier posts in the series

Comparing film to digital - part I
Comparing film to digital - part II
Comparing film to digital - part III
Comparing film to digital - part IV

The images are sized to fill your wide-screen display. Try using <F11> to maximize your browser window for the full effect. If the images overshoot your display, such as a laptop, just click on the image or the URL link and they'll resize to your screen from the host Flickr site. You can click a bit further into the image details on the Flickr page, if desired. EXIF data is available from the host Flickr pages as well. On the Flickr site, use your <L>key for Large and the <F11> for the full-screen.

If the images are not filling your widescreen display due to recent UHH changes, follow this link and update your UHH profile: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-572300-1.html

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nice

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Great post thank you. B&W has been on my radar for my own personal work.
And creating images that become B&W is not so easy. As for film and digital I
agrees they are just different. A creators choice. Thanks again.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

It is a fascinating series, CHG. I suspect a number of us "older guys" have read it with much interest. BUT... since the majority of 35mm-using Pros shot fine grain color transparency film, I can't help but wonder if your testing will dive into that aspect of the subject. Most of the "very serious pro/am" shooters I knew not only shot with the finest grain film they could get, but also took high-power loupes in hand to check for sharp detail in the original slides. I was lucky enough to get to work with original slides from many of the top pros of the 80s-90s while working for a Philadelphia printing company. Is 24mp Really superior in detail to Fuji Velvia 50 or Provia 100?

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

Paul, in the first two photos I find the digital photo photo more pleasing to the eye than the film version (too grainy), but the last film photo was great. I would have never thought that digital would have caught up
with film, you have proved that it has.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Great visual examples and information, thanks for posting. I still shoot film once in a while, I find the photo's come out a little better, especially black & white.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Ched49! I've done a couple of events in black and white film where there wasn't a turnaround time requirement. It's made for a great look and not something I would have done as a b&w conversion of all the digital images. My film usage ebbs and flows, sometimes a roll per month, sometimes more often. Glad you enjoyed.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Earnest! These various comparisons were intended for a few purposes, including rumors that yes, digital has passed most grades of 35mm film. Larger resolution sensors (30MP+) vs larger format film is a different discussion, but I don't have my own equipment and examples to hold a bake-off of these formats. A lot of these examples were created while looking at the grain of different films as well as developing my own exposure technique where underexposing film just makes the grain worse. Glad you enjoyed the survey of results.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you cameraf4! My growing-up background was 35mm print-film and has stayed that way after a break from the late 90s till returning to film in the mid 20-teens. I'm sure there's plenty of argument about 24MP vs Velvia 50, but now that 30MP+ is available in multiple bodies from multiple vendors, even here digital is moving ahead, at least at 35mm. The 100% "peek" in the mirrorless EVF has reawakened my use of manual focus lenses where about this time last year, I was considering selling off all my manual focus equipment after continued disappointment in the sharp focus I was missing with my manual focus abilities and film. This series just shows the results I've been creating in 35mm; I don't see myself expanding into other film sizes. Maybe you or others can create such a presentation? Glad you've enjoyed these examples.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Tom, Jerry! A lot of my B&W effort in 2018 was using yellow, orange or red filters. Only the truck in this post used a colored filter from the several b&w examples in the series of posts. I probably have enough of a portfolio of examples of films and filters now to return to certain films without filters. Glad you enjoyed this series.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There is more to the question of grain than simply its presence.

It is seldom a problem where the image is in focus and a lot of detail is present. In fact, under these conditions, the presence of grain can actually enhance the perception of sharpness, especially when the DOF is relatively shallow and there is a lot of in-focus detail as in the Sunflower on film.

Grain becomes more visible where the image is out of focus or where there is no detail as in the Cloudgate images you posted earlier.

Grain also becomes more noticeable as you increase the resolution of the scan process. I normally scan at 4000 dpi (the optical limit of my Coolscan) so I can nearly always see grain in both my small and medium format scans - about 21 and 70 MP respectively - when viewed at 100%. A lower scanner resolution masks some of that grain but it also reduces the apparent sharpness.

I say "nearly" because I have also scanned a lot of very slow films (ISO 6-40). Grain is almost impossible to detect in these films, even at 100%, but the low ISO is clearly a handicap.

There is also a difference between B&W film which nearly always contains metallic silver grains and grain clumps in a single layer and color film and transparency which almost never contains metallic grains (except for Kodachrome) and the colors are stacked in multiple layers.

Largobob

Very interesting images and discussion series, Paul. I am a 70 year old, serious hobbyist, not a professional. I shoot with a D500 and D810, with 24-70 f/2.8; a 70-200 f/2.8; a 200-500; a 105 f/2.8 Micro, and a Sigma 85mm Art series. Can't complain about the equipment.

I have recently gotten two Zenza Bronica GS-1 bodies, 6x7cm format, and Bronica's entire series of 'PG' lenses...with speed grip, extension tubes, electronic shutter release, filters, etc. With their multiple film backs, I can switch film types/ASA quickly between shots. I have their Bronica Speedlight that will iTTL link to the camera. A nice variety of fresh 120 film is available online. I generally have my film processed and scanned by 'The Darkroom'...and also have an Epson V600 scanner. The images are crisp and sharp.

I do enjoy both the worlds of digital and film. Medium format can produce some very striking images, when I do my part. I'm just an old curmudgeon who enjoys going out and collecting photons. In my case, the equipment is NOT the limiting factor in image quality....it is me who gets it right or not. I enjoy the experience way more than the result.

Again, I ALWAYS enjoy the images, discussions, and contributions you offer us, on this site. Thanks for all you do for us.

steve49 Loc: massachusetts

Thanks for this presentation. A lot of interesting points shown in living color ( or B & W ).

Some grain comments are interesting... But when we look at a lot of the earlier artists the photos are heavily grainy... Tonight I am going to a presentation on Harold Weinstein ( who lived locally )... A number of his images are shown. Strong images and very grainy.. A part of these earlier images for sure...
Despite the vast improvement in the photo gear it is still a challenge to create a strong image!

I flash back to years carrying 24 rolls of 36 and running out of film on trips...worrying about the airport scanner or saving the last few frames... I'm sure many here remember those days.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Steve! The saving / counting frames is an odd sensation. I always seem to get into the teens and invariably have the thought "what have I shot already?" From about #28 onward, it is a frame by frame mental counter. I brought 10 rolls of film on a recent trip and shot only 8 of them. I don't have a count on the digital images, but after 2 months of being back, I've edited / culled maybe just over half the digital work and have two rolls the scanned work to dive into.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Largobob! For me, the finished image is the point of it all, not the equipment nor the technique, although the technical "how" is critical to focused images with pleasing colors or interesting monochrome. The film is more of a hobby within a hobby where I'm probably satisfied with just the 35mm format, probably because I don't have any room for any more equipment ...